> Yes, I'm sure: we need a PEP first. Ideally it would answer some of > the questions raised above, and it would lay out the class hierarchy. The more I think about this, the more I agree that we need a PEP first: there are lots of potential traps. Maybe the biggest danger: declaring an abstract base class for e.g. "sequence-ness" would encourage programmers to test isinstance(x, sequencebase) when all they *really* need is something that supports the __getitem__ protocol. This would encourage writing code that is less polymorphic than it could be, and that would be a real loss. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4